Is Connor Mcdavid a "tier above" Sidney Crosby as a player?

[PainForShane]

Imagine trying to have a conversation with someone who spent their life around the game that scoring 4 points in a blowout 8-1 elimination win contributed nothing towards that teams win. Nothing, zero. All irrelevant points.

They probably would be polite enough to not laugh in your face but your opinion would be quickly dismissed as naive or biased.

Actually it's the opposite. I'm surprised anyone liked your post this is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life.

If a player scored 4 points in a blowout 8-1 win, it would depend when the player scored those points. If he scored his first point when the team was already up 3-1 (which is what happened with McDavid in the gm 4 win), then yes those points contributed very little if anything to the team's win. Because the team would've won whether regardless of whether the player scored 4 points or zero points.

Put another way, the team would've won regardless of this player's contribution. Therefore the impact of the points on the outcome of the game is relatively small. Maybe the first goal mattered (to put the team up 4-1), but you could easily argue the impact was zero or close to it.

***

If you actually believe the point of view you clearly articulated in the post I am replying to, I'm not entirely sure how to follow up. Here I was just assuming you were trolling, but it looks like there may be other issues going on

Edit for niceness. First revision was maybe too harsh

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yeah, he also set up the play to make it 4-2 as well. I don't think you know what clutch means.

Whoa. I don't think that is a compliment, but I think that is the best we will get from you.

Yeah, nobody said that. Can't do the strawman arguments anymore, I told you that.

How is 4-2 a game winner? That would make more sense if it was 3-2?

But the game he lost? That’s still “clutch?”

You literally said this…
“Crosby has came up clutch in the biggest moments a lot. More than other players”

Actually it's the opposite. I'm surprised anyone liked your post this is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life.

If a player scored 4 points in a blowout 8-1 win, it would depend when the player scored those points. If he scored his first point when the team was already up 3-1 (which is what happened with McDavid in the gm 4 win), then yes those points contributed very little if anything to the team's win. Because the team would've won whether regardless of whether the player scored 4 points or zero points.

Put another way, the team would've won regardless of this player's contribution. Therefore the impact of the points on the outcome of the game is relatively small. I would argue that first goal mattered (to put the team up 4-1), but you could easily argue the impact was zero or close to it.

***

If you actually believe the point of view you clearly articulated in the post I am replying to, I'm not entirely sure how to follow up. Here I was just assuming you were trolling, but it looks like there may be other issues going on

You are so desperate just to have an argument.

Yes, McDavids 4 points in that 8-1 win were not impactful and meant nothing. You are so right. If McDavid had scored the first 4 points rather than the last….then that would have been way better for my liking..

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

You can tell who actually watched the games and who looked at the stat sheet afterwards.

Hey Pot. Did you see the games Crosby played on his Stanley Cup Final run in 2009? Your posts reek of someone who looked up the stat sheets 15 years later and didn't watch a single game.

How is 4-2 a game winner? That would make more sense if it was 3-2?

He scored to make the game 3-2. Why would him setting up another goal after that be a bad thing?

Do you know what a game winning goal is? According to your posts, you don't seem to understand the value of timeliness of goals, which explains a lot of your confusion around this whole 'clutch' thing.

 

[PainForShane]

How is 4-2 a game winner? That would make more sense if it was 3-2?

But the game he lost? That’s still “clutch?”

You literally said this…
“Crosby has came up clutch in the biggest moments a lot. More than other players”




You are so desperate just to have an argument.

Yes, McDavids 4 points in that 8-1 win were not impactful and meant nothing. You are so right. If McDavid had scored the first 4 points rather than the last….then that would have been way better for my liking..

"More than other players" doesn't mean "more than anyone" (ie more than every other player) which is what you claimed last post. Pretty sure everyone knows this, we all learned this in elementary school.

 

[onetweasy]

You want the point?

You can't handle the point.

The basic premise of the whole thread is McDavid is above Sid.

And the argument is "hurr durr moar points".

When the whole league, not just players named Sid or Connor, went up in scoring. The exact moment they shrunk goalie equipment.

If you removed the 15% scoring increase, Connor just had the same 36 points Malkin had.

And the thing that matters, their overall contribution to winning...

...is clearly Sid. Clearly.

Does McDavid have a change to get there? Sure.

He's already a top 10 all-time great.

But he definitely ain't yet.

Certainly not Mario level. A healthy Mario never would have lost a scoring title to 2 other players.

I'll spell it out for the people in the back.

Even the hurr durr 11 points greatest run ever.

Let's break it down.

Connor

Game 1.

3-0 loss.
0 points.
Contribution to winning: Zero

Game 2.

4-1 loss.
1 assist.
Contribution to winning: Minimal, got an assist on an opening goal

Game 3:

4-3 loss
2 assists
Contribution to winning: Minimal, contributed after the game was already out of reach

Game 4:

8-1 win
4 points
Contribution to winning: None. Points all came after team game was out of reach.

Game 5:

5-3 win
4 points
Contribution to winning: Pretty much single-handedly won this game by himself.

Game 6:

5-1 win
0 points
Contribution to winning: None

Game 7:

2-1 loss
0 points
Contribution to winning: None

That's one dominant win and a lot of compiling.

You know... winning. The reason they play the games.

Sid 2016 vs the SJ Sharks

Game 1:

3-2 win
1 assist
Contribution to winning: Set up tying goal

Game 2:

2-1 OT win
1 assist
Contribution to winning: Set up OT winning goal

Game 3:

3-1 loss
0 points
Contribution to winning: None

Game 4:

3-1 win
0 points
Contribution to winning: None

Game 5:

4-2 loss
0 points
Contribution to winning: None

Game 6:

3-1 Stanley Cup win
2 points
Contribution to winning: Set up Stanley Cup winning goal and blocked shot setting up empty netter to seal a cup victory

That's the Conn Smythe that he "didn't deserve".

And he still had 3 games that the team very likely doesn't win without him.

The point?

A lot of you are hoodwinked by points as your god because the whole league went up in scoring.

And that's just easy to look up offensive points.

Find me a more diverse highlight reel than Sid's.

Dancing through entire teams.
Scoring while falling.
The best backhand in hockey history
Edge work.
Pure power protecting the puck.
Use of his skates,
Hand eye batting pucks in and consistently incredible redirects.
No look passes.
Hockey IQ.
Undressing players and goalies.
Shooting it off goalie's masks.
Stealing pucks.
Winning battles on the boards.
Diving goal line saves.
Poke checks and picking pockets.
Using the boards and the back of the net.
The Michigan goal.
Winning key face offs.
Blocking key shots.

I could go on forever. I have been spoiled to watch his entire career.

He's either the luckiest player in history who just keeps landing on winning teams since he's 12.

Or just maybe... just maybe... those teams keep winning because having Sid is a big advantage.

Can Connor get there?

Sure.

But in terms of actual real world winning... he's NOT yet.

And he still has a ways to go.

Just hard facts right here. Zero bias.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Hey Pot. Did you see the games Crosby played on his Stanley Cup Final run in 2009? Your posts reek of someone who looked up the stat sheets 15 years later and didn't watch a single game.


He scored to make the game 3-2. Why would him setting up another goal after that be a bad thing?

Do you know what a game winning goal is? According to your posts, you don't seem to understand the value of timeliness of goals, which explains a lot of your confusion around this whole 'clutch' thing.

Wow struck a nerve? I watched every game that series and I saw Crosby do absolutely nothing to be impactful or meaningful? But no, I want to hear your logic behind his 3 points in 7 games and -3, while going scoreless in games 6 and 7. Tell me how “clutch” that was…

I think how the NHL calls GWG is a bit odd. You can have a “GWG” in a 5-2 win…you realize that right?

Why are you ignoring my question?

"More than other players" doesn't mean "more than anyone" (ie more than every other player) which is what you claimed last post. Pretty sure everyone knows this, we all learned this in elementary school.

so “more than others” yet can’t find more than 3 times he was “clutch.” Interesting…

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

I think how the NHL calls GWG is a bit odd. You can have a “GWG” in a 5-2 win…you realize that right?

So you would have been more impressed if Crosby didn’t set up an insurance goal, and instead won 3-2?

Why are you ignoring my question?

so “more than others” yet can’t find more than 3 times he was “clutch.” Interesting…

Well I just did 2009, and another poster did 2016 SCF, and another brought up the Golden Goal. It seems an exhaustive list would cause you to just move goal posts again.

 

[PainForShane]

So you would have been more impressed if Crosby didn’t set up an insurance goal, and instead won 3-2?

Well I just did 2009, and another poster did 2016 SCF, and another brought up the Golden Goal. It seems an exhaustive list would cause you to just move goal posts again.

@Nadal On Clay was right, that guy spoke reason. Would not be surprised if these guys change sports to go after Nadal for being terrible because he never won Miami or Paris Masters (or winning fewer Aus Opens / Wimbledons / US Opens than he did French Opens).

Either way trying to go after Crosby for not being clutch is clearly dumb. Very surprised (and also slightly amused) these guys have decided on this line of attack

 

[Frank Drebin]

You are so desperate just to have an argument

they just don’t understand hockey that well

The third, fourth and fifth goals in a 8-1 game are meaningless

Once a team gets up 2-1 the game is over

Especially the oilers. Up 4-1 ? May as well change the channel. They’re not blowing that lead.

 

[GreatGonzo]

So you would have been more impressed if Crosby didn’t set up an insurance goal, and instead won 3-2?

Well I just did 2009, and another poster did 2016 SCF, and another brought up the Golden Goal. It seems an exhaustive list would cause you to just move goal posts again.

I’m more arguing what does and doesn’t constitute a “GWG” because again the standards are strange.

So you would have been more impressed if Crosby didn’t set up an insurance goal, and instead won 3-2?

Well I just did 2009, and another poster did 2016 SCF, and another brought up the Golden Goal. It seems an exhaustive list would cause you to just move goal posts again.

Are you going to continue avoiding the question? Is a loss still “clutch?” Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of one being clutch?…

You have no clue what “moving the goalposts” means. Just because you say it a bunch of times out of context doesn’t make it meaningful

they just don’t understand hockey that well

The third, fourth and fifth goals in a 8-1 game are meaningless

Once a team gets up 2-1 the game is over

Especially the oilers. Up 4-1 ? May as well change the channel. They’re not blowing that lead.

McDavid is such a bum having a 4 point game in a blow out. Like, what kind of leadership is that? Would have been better if he didn’t score at all….people would still complain, but still!!

It’s the same logic I’ve seen regarding game 3. They are down 4-1 and McDavid gets them. Within 1 goal. But then it was…”he scored points when the game was already out of hand.” So basically either way….2 points, 4 points, 0 points….McDavid just isn’t good enough…

 

[PainForShane]

they just don’t understand hockey that well

The third, fourth and fifth goals in a 8-1 game are meaningless

Once a team gets up 2-1 the game is over

Especially the oilers. Up 4-1 ? May as well change the channel. They’re not blowing that lead.

No one said that nor does anyone believe it.

 

[GreatGonzo]

No one said that nor does anyone believe it.

Well when many are saying scoring 4 more points when the score is already 4-1 or scoring 2 more points when your down 1-4 are all negative….you aren’t far off

 

[PainForShane]

Well when many are saying scoring 4 more points when the score is already 4-1 or scoring 2 more points when your down 1-4 are all negative….you aren’t far off

Actually those situations are completely different. That's the point.

And also, no one is saying scoring points is negative.

Is this hyperbole? I can't tell.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

I’m more arguing what does and doesn’t constitute a “GWG” because again the standards are strange.

Are you going to continue avoiding the question? Is a loss still “clutch?” Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of one being clutch?…

They won game 4 in 2009. How do you not understand that? Crosby scored to make it 3-2, then set up Kennedy for an insurance goal.

You have no clue what “moving the goalposts” means. Just because you say it a bunch of times out of context doesn’t make it meaningful

Its where you keep changing the context of a question. Like when you asked for another example after the golden goal comment, and then the guy gave you the 2016 SCF in depth break down of specifically when and how Crosby was clutch, but then you said that isn't enough examples, I need at least another one, and then I give you 3 in the 2009 Cup run, and now you want more.

You see where this is going? If you don't think these are good examples?

 

[GreatGonzo]

Actually those situations are completely different. That's the point.

Is this hyperbole? I can't tell.

How so? Please explain.

I bet you had to look up how to spell “hyperbole”

 

[Frank Drebin]

I’m more arguing what does and doesn’t constitute a “GWG” because again the standards are strange.

Are you going to continue avoiding the question? Is a loss still “clutch?” Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of one being clutch?…

You have no clue what “moving the goalposts” means. Just because you say it a bunch of times out of context doesn’t make it meaningful


McDavid is such a bum having a 4 point game in a blow out. Like, what kind of leadership is that? Would have been better if he didn’t score at all….people would still complain, but still!!

It’s the same logic I’ve seen regarding game 3. They are down 4-1 and McDavid gets them. Within 1 goal. But then it was…”he scored points when the game was already out of hand.” So basically either way….2 points, 4 points, 0 points….McDavid just isn’t good enough…

Doesn’t have that it factor
Bunch of irrelevant points, no Michigan, no goals off goalies helmets

These guys are twisting themselves in knots trying to diminish mcdavid and prop up sid

Just makes for better reading later on

 

[GreatGonzo]

They won game 4 in 2009. How do you not understand that? Crosby scored to make it 3-2, then set up Kennedy for an insurance goal.

Its where you keep changing the context of a question. Like when you asked for another example after the golden goal comment, and then the guy gave you the 2016 SCF in depth break down of specifically when and how Crosby was clutch, but then you said that isn't enough examples, I need at least another one, and then I give you 3 in the 2009 Cup run, and now you want more.

You see where this is going? If you don't think these are good examples?

Again you can be up 3-0 and the person that scored the third goal gets the “GWG” if let’s say the other team scores 2 goals…then your team scores another 2(5-2 win). Just funky is all.

My question about the loss was about his dueling hat trick with Ovi. They lost right? Is that still clutch?

All your doing is avoiding the MAJOR context in that posters analysis of both McDavid and Crosby. It’s hilarious. You are really going to side with a guy who stated that McDavid only had ONE game where he was impactful and where his points meant anything….or was that me “moving the goal posts” again?…

 

[PainForShane]

How so? Please explain.

I bet you had to look up how to spell “hyperbole”

Bro it was a joke. No need to back peddle just because it flew over your head.

 

[GreatGonzo]

When at a loss, correct their grammar

 

[PainForShane]

When at a loss, correct their grammar

Sorry man. That's not what just happened here.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Sorry man. That's not what just happened here.

That must have been the highlight of your week catching me on that good for you. I’m sure you will be reminiscing about it for awhile.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I appreciate your work and I didn’t just skim over it. My intent was to demonstrate that Crosby couldn’t run it from front to back over an entire contained season. He topped out at an extremely high PPG at around the 55-60 game mark a couple of times (whether it was from the start or to the end of the season). He had an easily seen pattern of never finishing the job at quite the same high level. An equivalent that I’d like to bring up is that McDavid had 42 points in his first 22 games following the 105 in 56 game season. He finished with 81 points in his final 58 games. He opened up the discussion that perhaps that was an unattainable hot streak that he couldn’t repeat. Then he went out and dropped 153 over a full normal season. He proved it was no fluke. That was my intent.

My other intent, as always, is that pace is worthless, unless you’re Gretzky, Lemieux, and to a lesser degree, McDavid. Crosby had 45 points in 26 games in 2012-2013. If his season ended 10 games earlier, you and the pace preachers would have us believe he would have 62 points through 36 games and have actually won the Art Ross, despite the 12 missed games, rather than the reality of 56 points and tying for third place.

I have little doubt Crosby would have had 115-120 points in 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, if he played 80+ games. I can be persuaded that he might have topped out at 130 once. I also think it’s reasonable to expect 1.3 PPG for the second half of 2010-2011, which puts him just under 120. In the past, I’ve said that he seems poised to have collected phantom hardware in both 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, but I really dislike these trophies being awarded as if he actually won them. 2011-2012 is a mystery to me because it was 22 fractured games, and he had a history of losing sure things before and after this time period.

Crosby hater? I don’t know about that. A hater wouldn’t have him at #5 or #6 all-time. The push back against exaggerations and unwillingness for people to allow McDavid to supplant him is what you’re misdiagnosing as hate though.

You’re still wrong about the bolded part, though. In fact, Crosby was even better than McDavid at sustaining his pace production (and exceeding it) in the 2nd half of a season having done it in 3 of the 4 healthy seasons (>75% GP) he played going into his age 23 season (2011) compared to McDavid, who had only done it in 2 of his 4 healthy seasons before going into his age 23 season (2021). There’s absolutely no reasons why Crosby shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt for the seasons where he missed games in the middle of his prime, given the track record he had shown us beforehand.

Take a look at what McDavid’s trophy cabinet would look like if he had played the same % of games as Crosby during his age 23, 24 and 25 seasons:

Art Ross x 2
Hart x 1
Lindsey x 3 (Might still have won the Lindsey in 2023, just like Crosby still won it in 2013)

Now this is what Crosby had after his 9th season (where McDavid is at now.)

Art Ross x 2
Hart x 2
Lindsey x 3

Crosby just got really unlucky with the timing of his injuries. That’s it. McDavid should obviously be given more credit, as he actually played these games and made the most of it, but to act like they are not in the same tier as players after their 9th season is just ignorant, especially because Crosby literally won the Ross after his first healthy season in 4 years, in 2014, in a dominant fashion.

 

[Frank Drebin]

You’re still wrong about the bolded part, though. In fact, Crosby was even better than McDavid at sustaining his pace production (and exceeding it) in the 2nd half of a season having done it in 3 of the 4 healthy seasons (>75% GP) he played going into his age 23 season (2011) compared to McDavid, who had only done it in 2 of his 4 healthy seasons before going into his age 23 season (2021). There’s absolutely no reasons why Crosby shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt for the seasons where he missed games in the middle of his prime, given the track record he had shown us beforehand.

Take a look at what McDavid’s trophy cabinet would look like if he had played the same % of games as Crosby during his age 23, 24 and 25 seasons:

Art Ross x 2
Hart x 1
Lindsey x 3 (Might still have won the Lindsey in 2023, just like Crosby still won it in 2013)

Now this is what Crosby had after his 9th season (where McDavid is at now.)

Art Ross x 2
Hart x 2
Lindsey x 3

Crosby just got really unlucky with the timing of his injuries. That’s it. McDavid should obviously be given more credit, as he actually played these games and made the most of it, but to act like they are not in the same tier as players after their 9th season is just ignorant, especially because Crosby literally won the Ross in dominant fashion after his first healthy season in 4 years, in 2014, in a dominant fashion.

You raise some fair points. Truthfully I never realized that Crosby had a similar dominance over his peers when you look at ppg over the first 9 seasons

Crosby never had those dominating art ross wins and didn’t have the quantity of them and that likely was due to the injuries, but in fairness 5 art ross trophies is simply more impressive than 2 and that’s why so many of us have mvdavid between the two

That, and quite possibly the wow factor that mcdavid brings

Ultimately at the end of their careers I fully believe that mcdavid will have the better career and will be remembered s as the better player

But I respect your opinion and your reasoning as it’s based in fact

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I appreciate your work and I didn’t just skim over it. My intent was to demonstrate that Crosby couldn’t run it from front to back over an entire contained season. He topped out at an extremely high PPG at around the 55-60 game mark a couple of times (whether it was from the start or to the end of the season). He had an easily seen pattern of never finishing the job at quite the same high level. An equivalent that I’d like to bring up is that McDavid had 42 points in his first 22 games following the 105 in 56 game season. He finished with 81 points in his final 58 games. He opened up the discussion that perhaps that was an unattainable hot streak that he couldn’t repeat. Then he went out and dropped 153 over a full normal season. He proved it was no fluke. That was my intent.

My other intent, as always, is that pace is worthless, unless you’re Gretzky, Lemieux, and to a lesser degree, McDavid. Crosby had 45 points in 26 games in 2012-2013. If his season ended 10 games earlier, you and the pace preachers would have us believe he would have 62 points through 36 games and have actually won the Art Ross, despite the 12 missed games, rather than the reality of 56 points and tying for third place.

I have little doubt Crosby would have had 115-120 points in 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, if he played 80+ games. I can be persuaded that he might have topped out at 130 once. I also think it’s reasonable to expect 1.3 PPG for the second half of 2010-2011, which puts him just under 120. In the past, I’ve said that he seems poised to have collected phantom hardware in both 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, but I really dislike these trophies being awarded as if he actually won them. 2011-2012 is a mystery to me because it was 22 fractured games, and he had a history of losing sure things before and after this time period.

Crosby hater? I don’t know about that. A hater wouldn’t have him at #5 or #6 all-time. The push back against exaggerations and unwillingness for people to allow McDavid to supplant him is what you’re misdiagnosing as hate though.

Crosby had a career ppg of 1.36 going in to 2010-11. Expecting a ppg of 1.3 for the rest of the season at age 23 is unreasonably low.

 

[Video Nasty]

Crosby had a career ppg of 1.36 going in to 2010-11. Expecting a ppg of 1.3 for the rest of the season at age 23 is unreasonably low.

Not really. He had 88 points through the first 72 games of the prior season at age 22 (1.22 PPG).